Judges across Poland refusing to work with the neo-KRS. Łętowska: “It’s not a boycott, but a precaution”

Share

Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego

More

The assemblies of judges of all appellate courts in Poland have no intention of issuing opinions on candidates for judicial posts. They are refusing to cooperate with the new KRS, because the EU Court of Justice will soon rule whether it was established in accordance with EU law. "We have heard the negative opinion of the Advocate General. Common sense dictates that we avoid deepening the legal chaos,” comments Ewa Łętowska



As early as the end of 2018, judges from Gdańsk and Kraków announced that they would not issue opinions on candidates for judicial posts, in order to halt nominations in which the new National Council of the Judiciary is taking part. Currently, judges of all eleven courts of appeal are protesting.

 

“This is the decision of all the appellate courts, and in some cases even a ‘double’ decision – in Gdańsk and Katowice, for example, the assembly of judges passed the resolution for a second time. This is becoming a standing practice,” says the President of the Association of Polish Judges “Iustitia”, judge Krystian Markiewicz.

 

According to the provisions of the Common Courts Act (Art. 58), the opinion of the assembly of judges or the judicial college is an important element of the judicial nomination process. The President of each court submits the assessments to the National Council of the Judiciary.

 

But the status of the Council was called into question and referred for a preliminary ruling to the EU Court of Justice. After the “reforms” by Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, members of the KRS were elected by the Sejm in March 2018 with the votes of MPs from Law and Justice and Kukiz’15. Previously, the members-judges were appointed by members of the judicial community. In its prejudicial questions to the CJEU, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court expressed doubts as to whether the new rules for the elections to the KRS were in line with EU law.

 

If the CJEU concurs with the doubts expressed by the Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court, an earthquake is in store for Poland. The KRS is involved in all judicial nomination processes. Verdicts rendered by judges whose selection the KRS took part could be quashed.

 

“Common sense tells us not to deepen the legal chaos. It’s standard operating procedure for a court to suspend proceedings when waiting for a preliminary ruling. It is an expression of a somewhat desperate caution in the current conditions. We look forward to a rapid resolution of these issues. We have heard the negative opinion of the Advocate General,” comments Ewa Łętowska.

 

CJEU ruling expected

 

In his opinion of 27 June, CJEU Advocate General Evgeni Tanchev wrote that the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court “does not meet the requirements of judicial independence”, and that “the method of appointing members of the National Council of the Judiciary reveals irregularities” which may threaten its independence from the executive and legislative powers.

 

The final verdict of the Court will be announced in a few weeks’ time. In the vast majority of cases, the judges of the CJEU take account of the opinions of the Advocates General.

 

“A responsible judge in these situations says, ‘let’s take our time’. Because if the CJEU says that everything’s ok, then there’s no problem: we will set a time and present our conclusions regarding the KRS proceedings. And the Council will get to work, plan three sessions in a week, and go over the applications. We’ve been waiting for two years and Minister Ziobro has yet to announce new competitions. So now we should hold on for another six months to make sure that people know their proceedings before courts are valid,” – says Krystian Markiewicz.

 

“What if the Court rules like the AG? What then with these judgments, what then with these negative consequences? What will the KRS and the courts’ presidents say then? Let them take responsibility their failure in their obstinacy to forget about the potential consequences for other people, because they only thought about their own interests,” stresses the judge.

 

Better safe than sorry

 

Markiewicz admits that Polish courts are in the midst of a crisis. The number of judges is declining, and cases are taking longer and longer.

 

“By the Minister’s not announcing new competitions, the number of judges has decreased. I can also see this in my court. Cases are lasting much, much longer today than they were four years ago. But does this mean that we have to take part in this farce which threatens to compromise us all? And it’s not so much the judiciary as the Polish State, on behalf of whom verdicts are issued – because it could turn out after the Court of Justice’s judgment that the entire legal procedure has to be unwound because of improperly appointed judges,” says the president of “Iustitia”.

 

The decision to refrain from issuing opinions on judicial candidates can also lengthen the waiting time for cases to be resolved.

 

“Nobody likes waiting for a judgement. But it’s a lot worse when we get something that looks like a judgement and we think everything’s over with. Someone bequeathed us a house, we got a divorce, we got our job back, or lost it. And suddenly it turns out that there was no judgement. It’s better to wait than to repeat proceedings from the beginning,” Markiewicz explains.

 

Self-governments versus presidents

 

After the 2016-18 purge led by Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, the majority of presidents of courts are now favourable inclined towards Law and Justice. Among them are those who adhere to the resolutions passed by the assemblies of judges. For example, the president of the Warsaw Appellate Court has yet to forward lists of candidates to the KRS.

 

However, other presidents of courts are ignoring decisions of their judges’ assemblies.

 

“In Katowice, we adopted a resolution criticising the president of the appellate court, Witold Mazur, who sent the competition applications to his brother Leszek Mazur [the President of the National Council of the Judiciary – editor’s note]. He did so despite the fact that we adopted a resolution to postpone the opinion process, and we he was obliged to refrain. This also shows the discrepancy between the presidents nominated by ‘good change’ and the judicial community’s self-government,” says Krystian Markiewicz.

 

Reaction by the KRS

 

The National Council of the Judiciary itself reacted to subsequent resolutions by judges. Since December 2018 it has issued several statements. In them, the Council claims that the refusal of the justices’ self-government authorities to give opinions on candidates does not prohibit the president from forwarding candidates to the KRS.

 

“The contrary conclusion could lead to paralysis of the procedure for appointing judges to the detriment of the functioning of the judiciary, the aim of which is the optimal implementation of the constitutional right to court,” as the KRS explains.

 

In its statement of May 2019, the Council called on the presidents of courts “to promptly send all available documents related to the nomination procedure”.

 

“We do not feel responsible for the chaos that has prevailed in the judiciary after the so-called ‘reforms’, but we do feel responsible for minimizing the negative impact of the Ministry of Justice’s activities. We are aware of the possible consequences. On the one hand, if we yield, judges will be elected and someone in Poland will issue verdicts. Theoretically, we should be satisfied – we will have less work. However, it may turn out that all these trials will have to be repeated. That would severely increase the legal chaos,” stresses judge Markiewicz.

 

[translated by Matthew La Fontaine]



Author


Journalist at OKO.press and Archiwum Osiatyńskiego


More

Published

July 11, 2019

Tags

Supreme CourtDisciplinary ChamberConstitutional Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsPolandrule of lawZbigniew Ziobrojudicial independenceCourt of Justice of the EUEuropean CommissionNational Council of the JudiciaryjudgesEuropean UnionCourt of JusticeMałgorzata ManowskaAndrzej DudaIgor Tuleyadisciplinary systemCommissioner for Human RightsEuropean Court of Human RightsCJEUMinister of JusticeMateusz MorawieckiJarosław Kaczyńskipresidential electionsjudiciaryAdam Bodnarpreliminary rulingsdemocracyK 3/21muzzle lawHungaryelections 2020Kamil ZaradkiewiczBeata MorawiecFirst President of the Supreme CourtprosecutorsWaldemar Żurekdisciplinary commissionerEuropean Arrest WarrantProsecutor GeneralConstitutionCOVID-19Julia PrzyłębskaPresidentmedia freedomfreedom of expressionCourt of Justice of the European Unioncriminal lawMarek SafjanAleksander StepkowskiOSCEPaweł JuszczyszynNational Public ProsecutorPiotr SchabPrzemysław Radzikcriminal proceedingsPrime Ministerfreedom of assemblyStanisław BiernatExtraordinary Control and Public Affairs ChamberSupreme Administrative Courtconditionality mechanismconditionalityEU budgetCriminal ChamberLaw and JusticeprosecutionNCJMinistry of JusticeNational ProsecutorelectionsWojciech HermelińskiStanisław PiotrowiczAndrzej ZollMałgorzata Gersdorfacting first president of the Supreme CourtOrdo IurisMay 10 2020 electionsBroda and Bojara v Polandmedia independenceAmsterdam District CourtKrzysztof ParchimowiczTHEMISMaciej NawackiEAWmediaimmunityAnna DalkowskaCouncil of Europe2017policeFreedom HouseLech GarlickiEwa ŁętowskaArticle 7Venice CommissionWłodzimierz WróbelPM Mateusz MorawieckiAndrzej StępkaP 7/20Justice FundPiSC-791/19disciplinary liability for judgesNational Electoral CommissionAstradsson v IcelandPiotr PszczółkowskiJarosław WyrembakPegasusGeneral Assembly of the Supreme Court JudgesPresident of PolandPresident of the Republic of PolandJarosław GowinLGBTLGBT ideology free zonesSejmXero Flor w Polsce Sp. z o.o. v. PolandReczkowicz and Others v. PolandIustitiaKrystian MarkiewiczMichał LasotaZuzanna Rudzińska-BluszczSylwia Gregorczyk-AbramdefamationcourtsEwa WrzosekEU law primacyTVPLex Super OmniaAdam TomczyńskiBelgiumNetherlandsBogdan Święczkowskijudcial independencedemocratic backslidingViktor OrbanOLAFdecommunizationNext Generation EUvetoJózef IwulskiLaw on the NCJJustice Defence Committee – KOSrecommendationTeresa Dębowska-RomanowskaKazimierz DziałochaMirosław GranatAdam JamrózStefan JaworskiBiruta Lewaszkiewicz-PetrykowskaWojciech ŁączkowskiHuman Rights CommissionerMarek MazurkiewiczCCBEAndrzej MączyńskiThe Council of Bars and Law Societies of EuropeJanusz NiemcewiczMałgorzata Pyziak- SzafnickaStanisław Rymarpublic opinion pollFerdynand RymarzAndrzej RzeplińskiSupreme Court PresidentJerzy StępieńPiotr TulejaSławomira Wronkowska-JaśkiewiczMirosław WyrzykowskireportBohdan ZdziennickiMarek ZubikDidier ReyndersEuropean ParliamentOKO.pressZiobroMichał LaskowskiMarek PietruszyńskiPiotr Gąciarekhuman rightscorruptionEuropean Association of Judges11 January March in WarsawPaweł FilipekMaciej TaborowskiAdam SynakiewiczBelarusstate of emergencyneo-judgescoronavirusXero Flor v. PolandEU treatiesAgnieszka Niklas-BibikSłupsk Regional CourtMaciej Rutkiewiczresolution of 23 January 2020K 6/21Mirosław WróblewskiCivil ChamberJoanna Misztal-KoneckaLeon Kieresright to protestSławomir JęksaPKWWiktor JoachimkowskiRoman GiertychMariusz Kamińskiinfringment actionsurveillanceEU valuesMichał WośMinistry of FinanceCentral Anti-Corruption BureauENCJJacek SasinErnest Bejdalex NGOThe First President of the Supreme Courtcivil societyMaciej CzajkaRussiaMariusz JałoszewskiIsraelŁukasz Radkeforeign agents lawpolexitNational Recovery PlanK 7/21Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v PolandOrganization of Security and Co-operation in EuropeFirst President of the Suprme CourtLGBT free zonesequalityChamber of Extraordinary Verificationhate crimeshate speechcriminal codeGrzęda v PolandŻurek v PolandSobczyńska and Others v PolandRafał Trzaskowskimedia lawPrzemysła RadzikSenateMarcin WarchołElżbieta KarskaMarcin RomanowskiJacek CzaputowiczPrzemysław Czarneklegislative practiceENAZbigniew BoniekOmbudsmanKraśnikNorwayNorwegian fundsNorwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsMichał WawrykiewiczFree CourtsC-487/19Article 6 ECHRArticle 10 ECHRRegional Court in AmsterdamOpenbaar MinisterieUrsula von der LeyenAK judgmentSimpson judgmentForum Współpracy Sędziówpublic broadcastermutual trustLMIrelandIrena MajcherAmsterdamthe Regional Court in WarsawUnited NationsLeszek MazurMaciej Miterapopulisminterim measuresautocratizationMultiannual Financial Frameworkabortion rulingequal treatmentabortionprotestsfundamental rightsthe NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenFinlandMariusz KrasońCT PresidentGermanyCelmerC354/20 PPUC412/20 PPUAusl 301 AR 104/19Karlsruheact on misdemeanoursCivil Service ActParliamentary Assembly of the Council of EuropeEUWhite Paperlustrationtransitional justice2018Nations in TransitCouncil of the EUmedia taxStanisław Zabłockiadvertising taxmediabezwyboruJacek KurskiKESMAIndex.huTelex.huJelenJózsef SzájerKlubrádióSLAPPLIBE CommitteeStrategic Lawsuits Against Public ParticipationFrans TimmermansGazeta WyborczaUS Department of StatePollitykaBrussels IRome IISwieczkowskiArticle 2Forum shoppingadvocate generalDariusz ZawistowskitransparencyEuropean Economic and Social Committeepress releaseSebastian KaletaRights and Values ProgrammeC-156/21C-157/21C-619/18Marek Piertuszyńskidefamatory statementsWorld Justice Project awardNational Prosecutor’s Officeintimidation of dissentersWojciech SadurskiBogdan ŚwiączkowskiDisicplinary ChamberjudgeTribunal of StatetransferPechOlsztyn courtKochenovPrzemysła CzarnekEvgeni TanchevEducation MinisterFreedom in the WorldKrystyna PawłowiczECJIpsosFrackowiakOlimpia Barańska-Małuszeretirement ageMariusz MuszyńskiAmnesty InternationalHudocŁukasz PiebiakRegional Court in KrakówPiebiak gateKonrad SzymańskiPiotr Bogdanowicztrans-Atlantic valuesPiotr BurasLSOauthoritarian equilibriumlawyersArticle 258Act of 20 December 2019clientelismoligarchic systemRecovery FundEuropean Public Prosecutor's Officerepressive actPolish National FoundationLux VeritatisKoen LenaertsMałgorzata BednarekPiotr WawrzykharrassmentMarian BanaśAlina CzubieniakSupreme Audit OfficeTVNjournalistslexTVNGerard BirgfellerEwa MaciejewskaPolish mediapostal voteKrakówRzeszówDagmara Pawełczyk-Woickaborderpostal vote billprimacy